Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article envisages how one might conceptualize the ‘Grotian Style’ in international criminal justice as a practice of adaptation spearheaded by international judges rather than as actual changes occurring in the international system. It foregrounds the emblematic career of Antonio Cassese at the ICTY as epitomizing the trajectory of a scholar on the bench intent on seizing a historic opportunity to reframe the law. The contours, origins, and prospects but also limitations of the ‘Grotian style’ are then discussed. The problem with the Grotian style is not primarily that it runs roughshod over defense rights, but that it appropriates a law-making authority which, in the international system, is better understood as primarily vested in states. In the process, it risks exposing its hubris and shallowness, especially when deciding on normatively intractable issues. In a context where international criminal justice is increasingly being normalized, the time may have come to reconceptualize judges’ role along more global constitutional lines as rooted in an ongoing dialogue with the international community of states and an emerging separation of powers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".